Snowbirds down

[tony roberts]

Two Snowbirds collided today while training.
Link is here:

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=1fffa0c0-1179-43fe-87db-946b
440d7045



--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Blueskies]

"tony roberts" > wrote in message news:nospam-50703B.18411310122004@shawnews...
> Two Snowbirds collided today while training.
> Link is here:
>
> http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=1fffa0c0-1179-43fe-87db-946b440d7045
>



That's a shame...These guys fly a great show...

[Dave]

Really a sad day....

These guys fly a 9 plane formation, STAYING TOGETHER IN A CHANGING
FORMATION for 13 minutes at the show opening. Because the Tudor can
fly lower and slower than the fighters, the show is "center stage" for
the audience.

Rather than speed & power, it is like a delicate ballet that can bring
tears to the eyes of veteran pilots, the ones who can appreciate the
extreme difficulty of what they are doing, and the stress of being on
the outside of a rolling NINE plane formation.....

They will continue on after this , just like all the teams must do.

Condolences to them & their families.

Dave


On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:55:59 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"tony roberts" > wrote in message news:nospam-50703B.18411310122004@shawnews...
>> Two Snowbirds collided today while training.
>> Link is here:
>>
>> http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=1fffa0c0-1179-43fe-87db-946b440d7045
>>
>
>
>
>That's a shame...These guys fly a great show...
>

[Rob McDonald]

Dave > wrote in
:

> [ ... ]
> They will continue on after this , just like all the teams must do.
> [ ... ]
> Dave

I hope you are right. The government has been trying to disband them for a
few years. There was enough public outcry last time that they backed off.
This morning's paper says that following the crash our defense minister is
already talking about shutting them down again.

Rob

[John Clear]

In article >,
Dave > wrote:
>Really a sad day....
>
>These guys fly a 9 plane formation, STAYING TOGETHER IN A CHANGING
>FORMATION for 13 minutes at the show opening. Because the Tudor can
>fly lower and slower than the fighters, the show is "center stage" for
>the audience.

The Snowbirds and the Blue Angels were both at Salinas this year again.

The difference between the two teams is like night and day. The
Snowbirds are right in front of you the entire time. The Blue
Angels come by at high speed and then take three counties to turn
around and line up for their next pass. What the Blue Angels (and
Thunderbirds) do is amazing, but not no where near as interesting
as watching the Snowbirds fly.

With nine planes to work with, the Snowbirds can do some interesting
formations. They do one where they form a Canada Goose and another
where they a heavy bomber (two planes one each 'wing' with smoke on).

Some pictures from the Salinas Airshow are at:
http://www.panix.com/~jac/salinas2004/

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Really a sad day....
>
> These guys fly a 9 plane formation, STAYING TOGETHER IN A CHANGING
> FORMATION for 13 minutes at the show opening. Because the Tudor can
> fly lower and slower than the fighters, the show is "center stage" for
> the audience.
>
> Rather than speed & power, it is like a delicate ballet that can bring
> tears to the eyes of veteran pilots, the ones who can appreciate the
> extreme difficulty of what they are doing, and the stress of being on
> the outside of a rolling NINE plane formation.....
>
> They will continue on after this , just like all the teams must do.
>
> Condolences to them & their families.
>
> Dave

I had the pleasure to fly an aerobatic evaluation on the Tutor with Greg
Bruneau in the #10 bird, by invitation of the Snows back in 75.
You are absolutely correct about the format of their show. From the
beginning, Col O.B.Phillip's vision for the team was that they do a show
"close" to the people; and I don't mean in proximity; but in the
identification" aspect. The Snowbird show in my opinion is one of the
finest pieces of precision formation aerobatics done in front of the
public. It's extremely difficult to perform, takes tremendous skill, and
no group in the world flies a finer demonstration.
Hopefully, there will be something learned from this tragedy as there is
something learned whenever a crash occurs like this. It's been my
experience that the team will continue once the detractors have their
say and things quiet down. The Snows carry a message of friendship for
Canada wherever they go, and are an invaluable asset to the National
interest of Canada.

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash

[Gary]

I just saw the news of a loss of one of our snowbirds during a training
excersise near Moose Jaw. It is truly a sad day, I have grown to love the
snowbirds.
The downed pilot was from Tswassen (sp) a few minutes drive from my home. My
condolences go out to his family.
From the video footage of the crash site I am guessing that they were not
flying the tutor jet that they normaly fly at airshows but rather this new
turbine powerd Harvard trainer that I have seen in a video.

Gary
Soon to be pilot (soon)
CYNJ


"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-50703B.18411310122004@shawnews...
> Two Snowbirds collided today while training.
> Link is here:
>
> http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=1fffa0c0-1179-43fe-87db-946b
> 440d7045
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tony Roberts
> PP-ASEL
> VFR OTT
> Night
> Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Icebound]

"Rob McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> Dave > wrote in
> :
>
>> [ ... ]
>> They will continue on after this , just like all the teams must do.
>> [ ... ]
>> Dave
>
> I hope you are right. The government has been trying to disband them for a
> few years. There was enough public outcry last time that they backed off.
> This morning's paper says that following the crash our defense minister is
> already talking about shutting them down again.
>

The Minister's actual terminology was something like "will re-evaluate the
program". They have always been "grounded" following any accident, I
believe, until the investigation is done.

The Minister's remarks were in response to the usual probing by mindless
reporters bringing up the aging hardware, 10 million annual cost, and past
accidents (like 5 deaths since 1971, now doing 60 shows a year.). In the
chronology, the media even included a pilot killed in a car accident, just
to fatten it up (that would make 6).

The cost has always been a thorn for the Government, but I am hoping his
words were so the media would have something to take away, while at the same
time being code for "business as usual once the investigation is done".

The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a *military*
unit, and they are right, it isn't. It is pure PR that the military happens
to fund and staff. But we have to believe that sane people in the
Government of Canada and their Military will realize that their 10 Mil is
buying a lot more REAL National PR pride... than that other PR project we
know so well:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041115/GUITE15/TPNational/Canada
The 250 million that went into thin air could have funded them for the next
25 years.

[tony roberts]

Hi Gary

Not certain but I believe that they were flying the Tudors.
I saw references in the media about the traditional colours on the
wreckage, and also questions raised about the age of the aircraft.
What does age of the aircraft have to do with it - except to the media?
The way they are inspected and parts replaced no one can fault their
maintenance.
We have had several visits to Kelowna of the new turbine powered Harvard
trainer (which we all thought was a Pilatus - cool aircraft) but they
were all dark blue/black..
I'm just hoping now that they allow the Snowbirds to keep flying.


Tony
C-GICE



> I just saw the news of a loss of one of our snowbirds during a training
> excersise near Moose Jaw. It is truly a sad day, I have grown to love the
> snowbirds.
> The downed pilot was from Tswassen (sp) a few minutes drive from my home. My
> condolences go out to his family.
> From the video footage of the crash site I am guessing that they were not
> flying the tutor jet that they normaly fly at airshows but rather this new
> turbine powerd Harvard trainer that I have seen in a video.
>
> Gary
> Soon to be pilot (soon)
> CYNJ
>
>
> "tony roberts" > wrote in message
> news:nospam-50703B.18411310122004@shawnews...
> > Two Snowbirds collided today while training.
> > Link is here:
> >
> > http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=1fffa0c0-1179-43fe-87db-946b
> > 440d7045
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tony Roberts
> > PP-ASEL
> > VFR OTT
> > Night
> > Cessna 172H C-GICE




--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Michael]

Icebound wrote:
> The Minister's remarks were in response to the usual probing by
mindless
> reporters bringing up the aging hardware, 10 million annual cost, and
past
> accidents (like 5 deaths since 1971, now doing 60 shows a year.). In
the
> chronology, the media even included a pilot killed in a car accident,
just
> to fatten it up (that would make 6).

Ignoring the car accident, we're looking at 5 fatal accidents over the
course of 33 years, with a team of what, 11 pilots in any given year?
That's less than 400 pilot-years, and 5 fatalities. So what we're
looking at is a flying activity where even the most experienced pilots
(1300 hours in military jets is the MINIMUM to be considered) have less
than a 99% chance of surviving any single year. By contrast, there are
around 600,000 pilots in the US, and less than 600 fatalities (not all
pilots) annually.

Looking at it from another perspective, 60 shows a year (less in the
past) and 9 airplanes (less in the past) is AT BEST still well under
100,000 total hours flown, including repositioning flights. The Nall
report shows an overall GA fatality rate of 1.33 per 100,000 hours.
These guys managed 5 in less than 100,000.

One has to wonder why, given no-expense-spared training and
maintenance, and using only the most capable and experienced pilots,
this demonstration team can't even match the depressing statistics of
GA as a whole. Now I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that safety
isn't the most important thing - not even as important as putting on a
good show for the crowd - but before you rush to the defense of the
Snowbirds saying it should be business as usual after the
investigation, be sure you're comfortable with that too, because the
numbers don't lie - they're not a safe operation by any reasonable
measure.

> The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a
*military*
> unit, and they are right, it isn't.

I enjoy watching a good aerobatic demonstration as much as the next
guy, and I'm quite willing to pay for the privilege (and have) but as a
taxpayer I too would question whether millions of tax dollars should be
spent on an activity that is demonstrably dangerous and of no military
value. Plenty of aerobatic demonstration teams exist without taxpayer
support - why can't this one?

Michael

[Michael]

Icebound wrote:
> The Minister's remarks were in response to the usual probing by
mindless
> reporters bringing up the aging hardware, 10 million annual cost, and
past
> accidents (like 5 deaths since 1971, now doing 60 shows a year.). In
the
> chronology, the media even included a pilot killed in a car accident,
just
> to fatten it up (that would make 6).

Ignoring the car accident, we're looking at 5 fatal accidents over the
course of 33 years, with a team of what, 11 pilots in any given year?
That's less than 400 pilot-years, and 5 fatalities. So what we're
looking at is a flying activity where even the most experienced pilots
(1300 hours in military jets is the MINIMUM to be considered) have less
than a 99% chance of surviving any single year. By contrast, there are
around 600,000 pilots in the US, and less than 600 fatalities (not all
pilots) annually.

Looking at it from another perspective, 60 shows a year (less in the
past) and 9 airplanes (less in the past) is AT BEST still well under
100,000 total hours flown, including repositioning flights. The Nall
report shows an overall GA fatality rate of 1.33 per 100,000 hours.
These guys managed 5 in less than 100,000.

One has to wonder why, given no-expense-spared training and
maintenance, and using only the most capable and experienced pilots,
this demonstration team can't even match the depressing statistics of
GA as a whole. Now I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that safety
isn't the most important thing - not even as important as putting on a
good show for the crowd - but before you rush to the defense of the
Snowbirds saying it should be business as usual after the
investigation, be sure you're comfortable with that too, because the
numbers don't lie - they're not a safe operation by any reasonable
measure.

> The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a
*military*
> unit, and they are right, it isn't.

I enjoy watching a good aerobatic demonstration as much as the next
guy, and I'm quite willing to pay for the privilege (and have) but as a
taxpayer I too would question whether millions of tax dollars should be
spent on an activity that is demonstrably dangerous and of no military
value. Plenty of aerobatic demonstration teams exist without taxpayer
support - why can't this one?

Michael

[Happy Dog]

"Michael" > wrote in message

> One has to wonder why, given no-expense-spared training and
> maintenance, and using only the most capable and experienced pilots,
> this demonstration team can't even match the depressing statistics of
> GA as a whole.

Because it's a dangerous sport.

> Now I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that safety
> isn't the most important thing - not even as important as putting on a
> good show for the crowd - but before you rush to the defense of the
> Snowbirds saying it should be business as usual after the
> investigation, be sure you're comfortable with that too, because the
> numbers don't lie - they're not a safe operation by any reasonable
> measure.

Compare it to motorcycle racing.
>
>> The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a
> *military* unit, and they are right, it isn't.
>
> I enjoy watching a good aerobatic demonstration as much as the next
> guy, and I'm quite willing to pay for the privilege (and have) but as a
> taxpayer I too would question whether millions of tax dollars should be
> spent on an activity that is demonstrably dangerous and of no military
> value. Plenty of aerobatic demonstration teams exist without taxpayer
> support - why can't this one?

Plenty of aerobatic teams that fly jest?

moo

[Icebound]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Icebound wrote:
>> The Minister's remarks were in response to the usual probing by
> mindless
>> reporters bringing up the aging hardware, 10 million annual cost, and
> past
>> accidents (like 5 deaths since 1971, now doing 60 shows a year.). In
> the
>> chronology, the media even included a pilot killed in a car accident,
> just
>> to fatten it up (that would make 6).
>
> Ignoring the car accident, we're looking at 5 fatal accidents over the
> course of 33 years, with a team of what, 11 pilots in any given year?
> That's less than 400 pilot-years, and 5 fatalities. So what we're
> looking at is a flying activity where even the most experienced pilots
> (1300 hours in military jets is the MINIMUM to be considered) have less
> than a 99% chance of surviving any single year. By contrast, there are
> around 600,000 pilots in the US, and less than 600 fatalities (not all
> pilots) annually.
>
> Looking at it from another perspective, 60 shows a year (less in the
> past) and 9 airplanes (less in the past)

Well, not that many less. Their average, inception to 1999, was 56 shows a
year. They have then had 90 in 2000 (their max), and something near 60 per
year since... I don't have all the exact numbers..

>is AT BEST still well under
> 100,000 total hours flown, including repositioning flights. The Nall
> report shows an overall GA fatality rate of 1.33 per 100,000 hours.
> These guys managed 5 in less than 100,000.
>
> One has to wonder why, given no-expense-spared training and
> maintenance,

This is the Canadian military. There is no such thing as
"no-expense-spared", although there IS care, skill, dedication and
ingenuity.

>and using only the most capable and experienced pilots,
> this demonstration team can't even match the depressing statistics of
> GA as a whole. Now I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that safety
> isn't the most important thing - not even as important as putting on a
> good show for the crowd - but before you rush to the defense of the
> Snowbirds saying it should be business as usual after the
> investigation, be sure you're comfortable with that too, because the
> numbers don't lie - they're not a safe operation by any reasonable
> measure.

I am pretty comfortable with it, as long as they are, hence I will wait for
the investigation. They know better than us whether the risk is acceptable
to them.

>
>> The problem is that even some military grumble that this is not a
> *military*
>> unit, and they are right, it isn't.
>
> I enjoy watching a good aerobatic demonstration as much as the next
> guy, and I'm quite willing to pay for the privilege (and have) but as a
> taxpayer I too would question whether millions of tax dollars should be
> spent on an activity that is demonstrably dangerous and of no military
> value.

Is that a criteria? Military value?

The Snowbirds safety record is certainly comparable to the Blue Angels. The
Blue Angels have had one training/show death for every 14 million
spectators, while the Snowbirds record is 1 for 20 million spectators.

> Plenty of aerobatic demonstration teams exist without taxpayer
> support - why can't this one?
>

[Michael]

Icebound wrote:
> This is the Canadian military. There is no such thing as
> "no-expense-spared", although there IS care, skill, dedication and
> ingenuity.

There are also 10 full-time professional mechanics for 9 airplanes.
That sure sounds like "no-expense-spared" to me.

> I am pretty comfortable with it, as long as they are

As am I. I fully support their right to accept whatever level of risk
is acceptable to them. Let's just not kid ourselves about what that
level of risk is - when the reporters point out how many accidents
there have been, these are not numbers taken out of context. The
accident rate is pretty bad - comparable to motorcycle racing, BASE
jumping, and similarly hazardous activities. The difference is, the
Canadian taxpayer isn't funding motorcycle racing or BASE jumping
teams.

> Is that a criteria? Military value?

Sure. I guess I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that the proper
function of taxation is to pay for things in common that we can't
reasonably pay for individually and which are necessary for all, like
the common defense. I don't believe entertainment falls into that
category, much as I enjoy that particular form of entertainment.

> The Snowbirds safety record is certainly comparable to the Blue
Angels. The
> Blue Angels have had one training/show death for every 14 million
> spectators, while the Snowbirds record is 1 for 20 million
spectators.

That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit
assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw
sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator
ratio lower. Not that I have a problem with that, mind you - I simply
want the assumption out in the open where it can be examined. It will
certainly make a less-popular but much safer act that only ever had ONE
fatality look a lot worse because the spectator numbers will be lower.

In any case, while the comparison with the Blue Angels is reasonable, I
certainly never meant to imply that the Snowbirds were less safe than
the Blues nor in any way inferior. I've seen both acts, and while
they're very different they're both great to watch. If it makes you
feel better, I don't like my tax money paying for the Blue Angels
either - though I will happily buy a ticket to a performance.

Michael

[Morgans]

"Michael" > wrote

Snip here and there

>I guess I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that the proper
> function of taxation is to pay for things in common that we can't
> reasonably pay for individually and which are necessary for all, like
> the common defense. I don't believe entertainment falls into that
> category,

> Michael

It does fall under the category of a very powerful recruitment tool, and
that IS necessary for the common defense.
--
Jim in NC

[Icebound]

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Icebound wrote:
.... snip...
>
>> The Snowbirds safety record is certainly comparable to the Blue
> Angels. The
>> Blue Angels have had one training/show death for every 14 million
>> spectators, while the Snowbirds record is 1 for 20 million
> spectators.
>
> That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit
> assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw
> sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator
> ratio lower. ...snip...

That was not the purpose of the comparison.

The purpose of the comparison was to indicate that their safety record is
similar if not better than other aerobatic teams. This made me wonder about
the safety record of "private" aerobatic teams, for which little data is
available. And it also made me wonder whether it was fair to compare the
record of aerobatic teams with complex shows... whether private or not....
against GA statistics.

As for government funding.... as I said before, governments fund many other
way-less-useful projects (and not just a piddling 10 million). Here is one
that not only entertains both the participants and the spectators, but
generates endless good-will and visibility for the Country and the Military.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Icebound wrote:
> ... snip...
>>
>>> The Snowbirds safety record is certainly comparable to the Blue
>> Angels. The
>>> Blue Angels have had one training/show death for every 14 million
>>> spectators, while the Snowbirds record is 1 for 20 million
>> spectators.
>>
>> That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit
>> assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw
>> sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator
>> ratio lower. ...snip...
>
> That was not the purpose of the comparison.
>
> The purpose of the comparison was to indicate that their safety record
> is similar if not better than other aerobatic teams. This made me
> wonder about the safety record of "private" aerobatic teams, for which
> little data is available. And it also made me wonder whether it was
> fair to compare the record of aerobatic teams with complex shows...
> whether private or not.... against GA statistics.
>
> As for government funding.... as I said before, governments fund many
> other way-less-useful projects (and not just a piddling 10 million).
> Here is one that not only entertains both the participants and the
> spectators, but generates endless good-will and visibility for the
> Country and the Military.

Your comments on the teams are consistent with my experience.
Although I realize you are discussing the Snows, let me just speak just
a bit on the Thunderbirds, as I've been actively involved in their
history and their mission for many years. The situation for the Snows
will be unique to them of course, but the basic gut comments would be
similar I'm sure.
First of all......In my opinion at least, absolutely NO meaningful
comparison can be made between the scenario involved in jet team
formation aerobatics and any general aviation accident data base. It's
like comparing apples and oranges. I wouldn't even argue this point with
anyone.
As for discussing the team's value to a nation;
I worked closely with the Thunderbirds back in the mid seventies during
the fuel crisis when the team was under close scrutiny by the military
budget hounds. During that period, we looked at all the aspects of the
TB involvement in the American scene. We went over hundreds of documents
and reports trying to nail down a specific value for the team's worth to
the nation in toto. The recruitment issue was the easiest. We had
figures. It was impressive!
The public relations issue was much more complicated to nail down. The
Thunderbirds maintain a concept of people to people contact that they
have used successfully both at home and internationally since their
conception on May 29th 1953. We added up the overseas tours, the hours
flown, the millions of people exposed, and finally, after discussing the
issue with the powers that be in Washington, representatives of several
foreign nations, and the Thunderbirds themselves, we finally discovered
that the actual public relations value of the Thunderbird mission as a
means of internationally reaching the hand of American friendship to the
average man and woman in the street throughout the world was
incalculable!
I sincerely hope, and I have every reason to believe at this point
anyway, that the Canadian government is smart enough to come up with the
same conclusion that we did concerning the team's values, and will
continue to fund the Snowbird mission.
There is one factor in the Snowbird issue that we don't have here in the
U.S however. The Snows, notwithstanding the incorrect assumption of one
poster in this thread, do operate on a fairly tight budget as compared
to our teams in the United States. The Canadian forces just don't get
the funding we do down here. Since Col Philip began the Snowbird
mission, the funding issue has been hard coming. The Tutors have been
meticulously maintained. I know, I flew #10 myself. But they are getting
old, and the team should really get the upgrade they have been seeking.
I remember when our own Thunderbird team went in back in 82. The whole
team at once; out at Indian Springs. The talk was that it was all over.
The team would never fly again. I personally talked to Gen Creech at TAC
about the team's future. There was never any doubt. The government got
totally behind the mission and the team got F16's to replace the T38's.
The Thunderbirds were given a LOUD vote of confidence by almost every
member of the House and Senate.
I sincerely hope the Canadian government does the same for the Snows.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Icebound" > said:
>As for government funding.... as I said before, governments fund many other
>way-less-useful projects (and not just a piddling 10 million). Here is one
>that not only entertains both the participants and the spectators, but
>generates endless good-will and visibility for the Country and the Military.

And far better for the country than another country club in the ass-end of
nowhere that just happens to be the Prime Minister's home riding.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
God was co-pilot
But then we crashed in mountains
I had to eat Him.

[Michael]

>> That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit
>> assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw
>> sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator
>> ratio lower. ...snip...

>That was not the purpose of the comparison.

But it's a necessary assumption for the comparison to be meaningful.
So do you agree with it or don't you?

>The purpose of the comparison was to indicate that their safety record
is
>similar if not better than other aerobatic teams.

But it doesn't show that unless you accept the above assumption. For
all you know, the other teams have way fewer accidents but draw smaller
crowds (not that this is the case, but based on the numbers you quoted
it could be) or have way more accidents but draw larger crowds.

>This made me wonder about
>the safety record of "private" aerobatic teams, for which little data
is
>available.

On the contrary - both in the US and in Canada, every accident
involving a private aerobatic team member is public knowledge, and is
investigated. It's just that no private aerobatic team ever racked up
five. Government teams, on the other hand...

>And it also made me wonder whether it was fair to compare the
>record of aerobatic teams with complex shows... whether private or
not....
>against GA statistics.

Depends what you mean by fair. If you mean that the flying involved is
more demanding and thus can be expected to result in more accidents -
well, I agree. The same can be said of any accident that begins with
"Hey, y'all, watch this." The only difference is the size of the
audience.

>As for government funding.... as I said before, governments fund many
other
>way-less-useful projects

I'm not in favor of them either, and I don't think that's a good
argument.

Michael

[Icebound]

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> That's certainly an interesting way to asess safety. The implicit
>>> assumption here is that it's OK to have more fatalities if you draw
>>> sufficiently bigger crowds, as this will make your death/spectator
>>> ratio lower. ...snip...
>
>>That was not the purpose of the comparison.
>
> But it's a necessary assumption for the comparison to be meaningful.
> So do you agree with it or don't you?
>


Oh, sure I agree with it.

It is not much different that having 50,000 automobile fatalities per year,
but we accept that as "OK" because auto travel is useful and necessary.
Well, maybe all that auto travel is not all that necessary, but it is
extremely difficult to make that judgement.

Similarly, these performances may be doing some more or less "good", whether
in terms of the economic impact of thousands of visitors, or simply
providing people a few minutes of awe and enjoyment.... also extremely
difficult to judge for value.... and so about the only judgement of value
that we have, is a count of their "satisfied customers".

In both cases, nobody suggests that the safety record should not be
better.... but it is what it is, we expect that the Powers are doing as
much as reasonable to improve it, and as long as those directly involved are
okay with it, then so am I.


>>As for government funding.... as I said before, governments fund many
> other
>>way-less-useful projects
>
> I'm not in favour of them either, and I don't think that's a good
> argument.
>

It ceases to be a good argument, only when Governments cease funding idiotic
projects. That is unlikely to happen in my lifetime, YMMV.

[Michael]

Icebound wrote:
> Oh, sure I agree with it.
>
> It is not much different that having 50,000 automobile fatalities per
year,

Actually it's a lot different - quantitatively, not qualitatively.
Sure, we have 50,000 or so (give or take 20%) automobile fatalities per
year - but we have 250,000,000+ drivers on the road, most of them on a
daily basis. There are numerically a lot of fatalities, but on a
per-participant basis (or a per-hour or per-mile basis) the fatality
rate is actually pretty low - way better than GA, pretty much on a par
with the airlines - and getting lower every year with no impact on
utility.

> but we accept that as "OK" because auto travel is useful and
necessary.
> Well, maybe all that auto travel is not all that necessary, but it is

> extremely difficult to make that judgement.

In reality, probably most of it is not strictly necessary - but it's
something we WANT to do. We don't want to ride buses and trains, we
want to go where we want to go when we want to go there, and we're
willing to accept the fatality rate as the price of doing this. And
once again - I have no problem with this. I don't like public
transportation either, even if it is safer and cheaper.

> Similarly, these performances may be doing some more or less "good",
whether
> in terms of the economic impact of thousands of visitors, or simply
> providing people a few minutes of awe and enjoyment.... also
extremely
> difficult to judge for value.... and so about the only judgement of
value
> that we have, is a count of their "satisfied customers".

I don't have a problem with this. However, the inevitable conclusion
is that putting on a better show - one that draws a lot more spectators
- justifies having more fatalities. I don't have a problem with that
conclusion either.

> In both cases, nobody suggests that the safety record should not be
> better.... but it is what it is, we expect that the Powers are doing
as
> much as reasonable to improve it,

Different governments have different approaches to this. For example,
Holland has a hard and fast rule - no aerobatics below 500 AGL, ever.
I didn't know about that until I met an aerobatic competitor and
occasional airshow performer from there. He likes the regulation - it
eliminates perssure to go lower. On the other hand, Holland is not
exactly known for its airshow excellence.

> and as long as those directly involved are
> okay with it, then so am I.

I don't have a problem with that. I was only pointing out that when
the reporters brought up the safety issue, they were bringing up a real
issue, not an imaginary one.

> > I'm not in favour of them either, and I don't think that's a good
> > argument.
>
> It ceases to be a good argument, only when Governments cease funding
idiotic
> projects.

No, it's not a good argument right here and now. Cutting expenditures
has to start somewhere, and it's very hard to argue that entertainment
is a bad place to start.

Michael

[Icebound]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Icebound wrote:
>> Oh, sure I agree with it.
>>
>> It is not much different that having 50,000 automobile fatalities per
> year,
>
> Actually it's a lot different - quantitatively, not qualitatively.
> Sure, we have 50,000 or so (give or take 20%) automobile fatalities per
> year - but we have 250,000,000+ drivers on the road, most of them on a
> daily basis. There are numerically a lot of fatalities, but on a
> per-participant basis (or a per-hour or per-mile basis) the fatality
> rate is actually pretty low - way better than GA, pretty much on a par
> with the airlines - and getting lower every year with no impact on
> utility.

Well, now you have compared apples, oranges, and even bananas all in the
same group, so I will just quietly let it go by.



>
>> but we accept that as "OK" because auto travel is useful and
> necessary.
>> Well, maybe all that auto travel is not all that necessary, but it is
>
>> extremely difficult to make that judgement.
>
> In reality, probably most of it is not strictly necessary - but it's
> something we WANT to do. We don't want to ride buses and trains, we
> want to go where we want to go when we want to go there, and we're
> willing to accept the fatality rate as the price of doing this. And
> once again - I have no problem with this. I don't like public
> transportation either, even if it is safer and cheaper.
>
>> Similarly, these performances may be doing some more or less "good",
> whether
>> in terms of the economic impact of thousands of visitors, or simply
>> providing people a few minutes of awe and enjoyment.... also
> extremely
>> difficult to judge for value.... and so about the only judgement of
> value
>> that we have, is a count of their "satisfied customers".
>
> I don't have a problem with this. However, the inevitable conclusion
> is that putting on a better show - one that draws a lot more spectators
> - justifies having more fatalities. I don't have a problem with that
> conclusion either.
>
>> In both cases, nobody suggests that the safety record should not be
>> better.... but it is what it is, we expect that the Powers are doing
> as
>> much as reasonable to improve it,
>
> Different governments have different approaches to this. For example,
> Holland has a hard and fast rule - no aerobatics below 500 AGL, ever.
> I didn't know about that until I met an aerobatic competitor and
> occasional airshow performer from there. He likes the regulation - it
> eliminates perssure to go lower. On the other hand, Holland is not
> exactly known for its airshow excellence.
>
>> and as long as those directly involved are
>> okay with it, then so am I.
>
> I don't have a problem with that. I was only pointing out that when
> the reporters brought up the safety issue, they were bringing up a real
> issue, not an imaginary one.
>

Well, you can take the position that any death is a "real" issue of safety,
so sure they brought up a real issue...nobody said it was imaginary. But
"when reporters brought up the (real) safety issue", they should does not
immediately and necessarily imply an unacceptable level of risk....

>> > I'm not in favour of them either, and I don't think that's a good
>> > argument.
>>
>> It ceases to be a good argument, only when Governments cease funding
> idiotic
>> projects.
>
> No, it's not a good argument right here and now. Cutting expenditures
> has to start somewhere, and it's very hard to argue that entertainment
> is a bad place to start.
>

It is very easy to argue that entertainment is the worst possible place to
start.

Without entertainment, the human condition would be impossible to bear, the
suicide rate would skyrocket. So why not invest a few dollars to help the
poorest of the citizenry keep their minds off their worries for a Sunday
afternoon?

[Clamer Meltzer]

"Michael" > skrev i melding
oups.com...
> Different governments have different approaches to this. For example,
> Holland has a hard and fast rule - no aerobatics below 500 AGL, ever.
> I didn't know about that until I met an aerobatic competitor and
> occasional airshow performer from there. He likes the regulation - it
> eliminates perssure to go lower. On the other hand, Holland is not
> exactly known for its airshow excellence.

As far as I know this is not entirely correct. Frank Versteegh from The
Netherlands flies excellent displays with his Extra 300L and has an
Unlimited aerobatics authorization down to 30 feet AGL.

Rgds

Clamer

[Happy Dog]

"Michael" > wrote in

> I don't have a problem with this. However, the inevitable conclusion
> is that putting on a better show - one that draws a lot more spectators
> - justifies having more fatalities.

Do you have some statistics that show that better shows are riskier shows?

> Different governments have different approaches to this. For example,
> Holland has a hard and fast rule - no aerobatics below 500 AGL, ever.

Got a cite for this?

> No, it's not a good argument right here and now. Cutting expenditures
> has to start somewhere, and it's very hard to argue that entertainment
> is a bad place to start.

It's a bad place to start. "Entertainment" expenditures often bring in more
revenue benefits than other types of spending. Or do you object for ethical
reasons?

le m

[Michael]

Clamer Meltzer wrote:
> As far as I know this is not entirely correct. Frank Versteegh from
The
> Netherlands flies excellent displays with his Extra 300L and has an
> Unlimited aerobatics authorization down to 30 feet AGL.

Actually, it's not correct at all. I just got email from this guy and
it's from a .dk domain. I believe that's Denmark, not Holland. I got
the country wrong. Sorry about that.

Michael